Jump to content


Photo

So how should our next tv contract look?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 DrBulldog

DrBulldog

    SuperUser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,629 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 11:30 PM

Do we go for money? Or do we go for coverage?

One strategy would be to maximize the $$$$ by allowing the network to do what they want. That is kind of what happened with the current contract and caused great problems with membership.

Another strategy would be to maximize exposure, but limit contract length, thus banking on exposure to really get our product out and then maximize $$$ on the next contract.

Do we try to develop a network ala PAC12/Big10? One of the complaints regarding the PAC 12 is that some fans are having trouble getting it, due to so far only one satellite (DISH) carrying it.

If we are not exclusive, we don't maximize the money but at this point it seems to me that while $$$$ is important, perhaps the most strategic thing we can do is maximize exposure. Obviously if we went the direction of our own network, we would want to own, but that takes a lot of $$$$$$.

If we go the max exposure route perhaps we can "share revenue" instead of sell the product. That way if the conference has a better product we share better revenues and make the product available to many platforms/delivery channels.

Your opinions?

#2 aztech

aztech

    SuperUser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,612 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 11:45 PM

You do realize that this won't be an issue until the next 2 summer Olympics are over, don't you?

#3 SoCalValleyDog

SoCalValleyDog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 994 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 11:49 PM

I like the use of regional networks, ala TWS for UNLV, Fresno State and San Diego State, as long as you can good coverage throughout those states. One Tuesday or Thursday (No Wednesday or Friday games) game per is fine. Other than that maximize the money.

Building towards a network would be nice, but I'm not sure it could support itself.

#4 VandalPride97

VandalPride97

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 11:56 PM

Posted Image

#5 edluvar

edluvar

    Prestige Worldwide

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,011 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:23 AM

From Major League.....

Posted Image
Posted Image

#6 HR_Poke

HR_Poke

    SGF Cultural Nemesis.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,286 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:37 AM

From Major League.....

Posted Image

It says in my contract that I don't have to do an unnecessary calasthenics!

#7 Jesterrace

Jesterrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 852 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:42 AM

1) Don't let the University Presidinks or the Hair negotiate the deal, hire a media guru who knows what he/she is doing

2) The MWC needs to concentrate on home market saturation. It's never made sense to me that regional oriented teams spread themselves out on 3rd tier networks just so they can claim some kind of national coverage. It means that 95% of their fanbase has to pay through the nose for expensive cable/sat packages, so that 5% of the fanbase can see the games

3) Internet streaming IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It gives the aforementioned 5% the opportunity to see the games as well as other individuals who might be curious about the conference's teams but don't want to spend the money to get some obscure network.

#8 edluvar

edluvar

    Prestige Worldwide

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,011 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:59 AM

It says in my contract that I don't have to do an unnecessary calasthenics!



U da man
Posted Image

#9 Boise fan

Boise fan

    "Bronco Shakespeare"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:04 AM

Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

#10 HR_Poke

HR_Poke

    SGF Cultural Nemesis.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,286 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:07 AM



U da man

That is probably the best baseball movie out there.

#11 edluvar

edluvar

    Prestige Worldwide

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,011 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:13 AM

That is probably the best baseball movie out there.



Big fan of baseball movies. 8 men out, field of dreams etc however I agree that this is my fav.
Posted Image

#12 HR_Poke

HR_Poke

    SGF Cultural Nemesis.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,286 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:15 AM



Big fan of baseball movies. 8 men out, field of dreams etc however I agree that this is my fav.

Bull Durham is another good one. 8 men out is my favorite non comedy one, Shoeless Joe Jackson is still to this day one of my favorite players because of that movie.

#13 av-rated

av-rated

    The Bulldog Shiznit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,416 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:43 AM

1) Don't let the University Presidinks or the Hair negotiate the deal, hire a media guru who knows what he/she is doing

2) The MWC needs to concentrate on home market saturation. It's never made sense to me that regional oriented teams spread themselves out on 3rd tier networks just so they can claim some kind of national coverage. It means that 95% of their fanbase has to pay through the nose for expensive cable/sat packages, so that 5% of the fanbase can see the games

3) Internet streaming IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It gives the aforementioned 5% the opportunity to see the games as well as other individuals who might be curious about the conference's teams but don't want to spend the money to get some obscure network.


You probably should have quit after number 1...unless you're that 'media guru' that knows what he's doing. Not that I disagree necessarily with 2 and 3...but adding them as you did made me laugh after your 'leave it to the experts' admonition in number 1. Good thoughts otherwise!